This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-08-05 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In Pinausukan Seafood House, Roxas Boulevard, Inc. v. Far East Bank & Trust Company (now Bank of the Philippine Island),[15] the Court has traced the evolution of the action to annul the judgment or final order of the CFI, and, later on, of the RTC, and has indicated the proper court with jurisdiction over the action, as follows:The remedy of annulment of judgment has been long authorized and sanctioned in the Philippines. In Banco Español-Filipino v. Palanca, of 1918 vintage, the Court, through Justice Street, recognized that there were only two remedies available under the rules of procedure in force at the time to a party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of First Instance (CFI) that had already attained finality, namely: that under Sec. 113, Code of Civil Procedure, which was akin to the petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38, Rules of Court; and that under Sec. 513, Code of Civil Procedure, which stipulated that the party aggrieved under a judgment rendered by the CFI "upon default" and who had been "deprived of a hearing by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence" and the CFI had "finally adjourned so that no adequate remedy exists in that court" could "present his petition to the Supreme Court within sixty days after he first learns of the rendition of such judgment, and not thereafter, setting forth the facts and praying to have judgment set aside." It categorically ruled out a mere motion filed for that purpose in the same action as a proper remedy. | |||||